Underserved Adoptive Families PDF

Journal of Family Strengths
Volume 15
Issue 1 Underserved Populations in the United States:
Research, Response and Resilience
9-10-2015
Underserved Adoptive Families: Disparities in

Postadoption Access to Information, Resources,
and Services
Robin M. Hartinger-Saunders Ph.D.
Georgia State University, rsaunders@gsu.edu
Alex R. Trouteaud Ph.D.

Executive Director, youthSpark; Affiliate Faculty, Georgia State University, alex@youth-spark.org
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/jfs

Recommended Citation
Hartinger-Saunders, Robin M. Ph.D. and Trouteaud, Alex R. Ph.D. (2015) "Underserved Adoptive Families: Disparities in
Postadoption Access to Information, Resources, and Services," Journal of Family Strengths: Vol. 15: Iss. 1, Article 6.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/jfs/vol15/iss1/6
The Journal of Family Strengths is brought to you for free and open access
by CHILDREN AT RISK at DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center.
It has a "cc by-nc-nd" Creative Commons license" (Attribution NonCommercial No Derivatives) For more information, please contact
digitalcommons@exch.library.tmc.edu
Article 6
Hartinger-Saunders and Trouteaud: Underserved Adoptive Families
INTRODUCTION
Vulnerable and Underserved Populations

The term vulnerability is synonymous with powerlessness, helplessness,
and
susceptibility.
Individuals,
families,
groups,
or
communities
experiencing circumstances or conditions that limit access to information,

resources, or services are those most vulnerable and in need of advocacy.
Vulnerability is typically associated with a number of factors, including, but
not limited to, the following: age; race; ethnicity/culture; gender;
citizenship; disability; sexual orientation; emotional, psychological, and
physical health; geography; and socioeconomic status. When the needs of
vulnerable groups are discounted or ignored, rarely do adequate services
to address their distinctive needs follow. As a result, the vulnerable
become underserved.
In this paper, we introduce the concept of underserved adoptive families
and discuss its nature and reach by using a national survey data set of
families that have adopted children from the U.S. foster care system. We
identify underserved adoptive families as families that have adopted
children from foster care and indicate a need for post-adoptive services,
but whose service need(s) are not met by the state. We argue that this is
an important child welfare system concept because post-adoptive services
serve a key function in the states mandate to ensure child safety,
permanence, and well-being. Post-adoptive services are intended to
prevent traumatic and costly adoption failures in which the child reenters
the foster care system before finalization (disruption) or after finalization
(dissolution). Because placement instability in foster care often occurs as
the result of a breakdown in the childfoster caregiver relationship (Leve
Published by DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center, 2015
Journal of Family Strengths, Vol. 15 [2015], Iss. 1, Art. 6
et al., 2012; Smith, 2014a), we contend that this vulnerability extends to

the childadoptive family relationship as well.
The act of adopting does not preclude adoptees or adoptive families from
experiencing the negative consequences of child maltreatment. The body
of research exploring the long-term effects of maltreatment on
neurobiological
development
suggests
that
persistent
brain
and
neurological vulnerabilities affect the childs success at home and in

school and social spheres (Leve et al., 2012). Depending on the age of
the child at the time of the adoption, it is unlikely that the child received
adequate services to address trauma. When this is the case, it is not a
question of will the child experience difficulties, but when? As problems
emerge, it is imperative for the child's success that adoptive parents have
access to adequate information, services, and resources to address
issues that threaten the stability of the family and the subsequent
retraumatization of the adopted child.
The Inherent Vulnerability in Adoptive Families

Children in foster care are arguably one of our nations most vulnerable
populations. When adoptive families take on the lifelong commitment to
parent a foster child, they increase the risk for vulnerability within their
family. From a bio-ecological perspective, change in the childs
environment (i.e., from foster care to an adoptive home) is not sufficient to
alter the course of his or her development. Consideration must be given to
the biological (Rutter, Silberg, OConnor, & Simonoff, 1999) and
neurobiological factors that increase the childs risk for externalizing
behaviors. Current research in this area indicates that adverse
experiences, such as child maltreatment, fundamentally and permanently
modify the critical neural systems responsible for learning, memory, and
http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/jfs/vol15/iss1/6
self-regulation (Debillis, Spratt, & Hooper, 2011; Miskovic, Schmidt,

Georgiades, Boyle, & Macmillan, 2010). With this available knowledge, it
is unrealistic for child welfare agencies to expect adoptive families to
remain intact without access to a continuum of evidence-based services
developed to address the multitude of complex issues that may arise.
Children adopted from foster care have significant needs associated with
the history of maltreatment and the permanent severing of relationships
with their biological families (Hartinger-Saunders, Trouteaud, & MatosJohnson, in press-b; Smith, 2014a). It is estimated that between 46% and
90% of children in the child welfare system experience multiple adverse or
traumatic incidents (Lau et al., 2005; Smith, Howard, & Monroe, 2000).
Compared with the general population, children in foster care experience
a higher incidence of neurobiological, cognitive, developmental, emotional,
physical, and behavioral issues (Leve et al., 2012; Carbone, Sawyer,
Searle, & Robinson, 2007).
The Childs Impact on Adoptive Families

Behavioral
problems
increase
stress
levels
among
caregivers
(Chamberlain et al., 2006). Without sufficient support, caregivers stress

levels remain high (Fisher & Stoolmiller, 2008), a situation that is often
associated with poor parentchild interactions and an increased risk for
adoption dissolution (McGlone, Santos, Kazama, Fong, & Mueller, 2002).
Conversely, low levels of parental stress have been found to decrease
maladjustment in adopted children (Grotevant, Wrobel, van Dulmen, &
Mcroy, 2001).
Psychiatric disorders, which are nearly three times higher in abused
children (Briggs-Gowan, Horwitz, Schwab-Stone, Leventhal, & Leaf,
2000), increase the risk for placement disruptions (Chamberlain et al.,
2006). Evidence from the field of neuroscience further links a history of

placement instability with a disturbance in the hypothalamicpituitary
adrenal (HPA) axis, which regulates the childs stress response system
(Dozier et al., 2006; Fisher, Gunnar, Dozier, Bruce, & Pears, 2006). When
a child is unable to regulate emotions in the context of environmental
stress, the childs psychosocial development (Fisher, Mannering, Van
Scoyoc, & Graham, 2013) and the childcaregiver relationship may be
compromised (Oosterman, de Schipper, Fisher, Dozier, & Schuengel,
2010).
Underserved Adoptive Families

Because of the pervasive, long-term effects of trauma, adoptive parents
are faced with handling unique challenges related to childhood trauma
when they make the decision to adopt a child from foster care (Zill &
Bramlett, 2014; Smith, 2014a). Furthermore, adoptive parents and
adoptees go through similar emotional experiences related to the adoption
process (e.g., transitioning to a new family structure, developing emotional
bonds), so that stress increases within the household (Y SanchezSandoval & Palacios, 2012). The finalization of an adoption may diminish
the states legal obligation to the adopted child, but finalization itself does
not ensure that adoptive parents are adequately supported or prepared to
deal with complex problems when they arise (Hartinger-Saunders,
Trouteaud, & Johnson, in press-a). Subsequently, a lack of preparation,
training, and supportive services for adoptive families before and after the
adoption are associated with adoption failures (Coakley & Berrick, 2008).
Regrettably, the quantity and quality of post-adoption services available to
address these challenges remain vastly insufficient (Livingston, 2010;
Smith, 2014a; Smith, 2014b).
Post-adoption Service Need and Access

Historically, adoptive families have struggled to find post-adoption services
that assist in caring for the adopted child. Specialized post-adoption
services were initiated in the late 1980s and 1990s (Smith, 2013). While
the number of services available has increased, many services have been
terminated, scaled back, or offered on a limited basis in the wake of
funding constraints (Smith, 2013; Smith, 2014a).
Few studies have investigated the effectiveness of post-adoption services
(Vandivere & McKlindon, 2010; Barth & Miller, 2001) beyond client
satisfaction. Studies have shown that adoptive families, regardless of how
long ago the adoption was finalized, identify similar needs for services and
support (Anderson, 2005). The California Longitudinal Adoption Study is
one of the first to document the increased need for post-adoption services
as time progresses. The study found that clinical service use among
adoptive families increased from 9% at wave 1 (two years after adoption)
to 31% at wave 3 (eight years after adoption), and that general postadoption service use (e.g., support groups) increased from 31% at wave 1
to 81% at wave 3 (Wind, Brooks, & Barth, 2007). These findings further
support the contention that the needs of adoptive families do not end at
finalization. The needs of adopted children and their families often emerge
over time, rendering post-adoption service time frames of 3 to 6 months
unrealistic (Smith, 2014a).
Barriers to Obtaining Services

Although adoptive parents need post-adoption services, studies have
consistently shown that they do not always access services (HartingerSaunders et al., in press-b; Brooks, Allen, & Barth, 2002; Howard & Smith,
1993). While adoptive families cannot be mandated to receive postadoption services, once the services have been accessed, the families
typically report that they are helpful (Avery, 2004; Brooks et al., 2002;
Smith et al., 1998). However, there are a number of identified barriers to
accessing services.
Ryan, Nelson, and Seibert (2009) conducted one of the first studies to
explore the barriers that prevent adoptive families from accessing
treatment and support services after placement, from the perspective of
adoption professionals. They identified the following as barriers: (1)
inadequacy
of
available
clinical
support
services;
(2)
lack
of
communication between the worker and the adoptive family about what
services exist; (3) worker turnover, which limits the offer of additional
services; (4) adoptive parents unawareness that they can access services
after finalization; and (5) an uneven distribution of services (Ryan et al.,
2009).
Thus, the literature on post-adoption services generally agrees that such
services are crucial to the long-term health and well-being of adoptees
and adoptive families, yet in short supply for many of the families that
need them. Gaps exist, however, in the body of knowledge concerning
what types of families experience the greatest unmet needs for such
services, and what the consequences are of leaving those families needs
unmet.
The purpose of this study is to determine the scope of underserved
adoptive families in a national, online sample of adoptive parents who
have adopted a child from foster care. We further examine whether
traditionally marginalized groups (i.e., based on age, gender, race, marital
status,
income,
etc.)
are
disproportionately
represented
among
underserved adoptive families in the sample. The study also explores
whether underserved adoptive families have needs different from those of

other adoptive parents in the study, and whether they disproportionately
experience barriers to accessing services.
Study Hypotheses
The authors hypothesize that (1) adoptive families are underserved, (2)
traditionally marginalized demographic groups will be disproportionately
represented among underserved adoptive families, (3) underserved
adoptive families that need services will be less likely to have access to
services, and (4) underserved adoptive families will be more likely to
experience barriers to accessing services.
METHODS
Data
The data for the study come from the 2012 National Adoptive Families
Study (NAFS), a survey originally granted Institutional Review Board (IRB)
approval on October 5, 2011, and administered from January through
March 2012. Multiple studies of adoptive families (Hartinger-Saunders et
al., in press-a, in press-b) have been conducted with the use of NAFS
data. NAFS participants include parents in the United States who have
legally adopted at least one child from the U.S. foster care system. The
NAFS instrument measures family characteristics, family experiences, and
various parent and child outcomes associated with adoption from the
foster care system. Although most NAFS variables are derived from
closed-ended survey questions, several open-ended questions are also
included in the data set.
Sample
NAFS data come from an online convenience sample of 437 respondents

who were recruited through various sources, primarily adoption-related
organizations that promoted the survey on their official websites and
through other forms of social media. Respondents came from all 50
states. In order to ensure that the survey was not perceived to be
government-sponsored or -monitored, the NAFS was not promoted by any
public or private adoption agencies.
All NAFS participants provided electronic informed consent. Once a
potential respondent clicked on the survey link, the respondent was
presented with a description of the study and an informed consent
agreement. Participation
in
the
study was completely voluntary.
Respondents who agreed to the informed consent proceeded with the

survey voluntarily and were instructed to close the browser window at any
time if they wished to terminate participation in the voluntary survey.
The NAFS uses a within-household nearest birthday random selection
method for questions pertaining to an adopted child among families that
have adopted more than one child from the U.S. foster care system. NAFS
questions pertain only to children adopted from the U.S. foster care
system, regardless of when the child was formally adopted and whether or
not the adoptee is still in the family home. The sample also includes
families that adopted a child from the U.S. foster care system but are no
longer parents of the child because the adoption was later dissolved and
the child returned to foster care. Respondents were allowed to participate
in the NAFS regardless of whether or not the agency through which they
worked was public or private because some states allow private agencies
to arrange foster care adoptions on the states behalf.
Several steps were taken in order to ensure that respondents provided
accurate, honest data. First, although potential respondents knew that the
survey was about adoption, they were not told exactly what criteria would
qualify them for the survey. Browser cookies were used to prevent and
later IP logging was used to check for multiple entries from a single
participant. The final data set was also checked for inconsistent survey
response patterns and speeders who completed the survey too quickly
to have read the questions carefully. On average, the survey took 10
minutes to complete. Those who completed the survey were offered a $5
e-gift card for Amazon.com.
Standard measures of sample adequacy, such as the response rate,
cannot be computed for the NAFS because it was a convenience rather
than a probability sample. The sampling method also prevents NAFS
parameter estimates from being used to generalize to the larger
population of parents who adopt from foster care. Table 1 in the Results
section shows the extent to which NAFS respondents differed in regard to
various demographic and adoption criteria from those in other adoptive
family survey data sets.
Measures
Needing and accessing post-adoptive services. Adoptive parents were
provided with a list of 14 post-adoption services and asked, In parenting
this child, what services did you feel were needed? Select all that apply.
Adoptive parents were asked to refer to the same list and then asked,
Which services did you actually access? The post-adoption services
were as follows: (1) adoption resource library, (2) social skills training for
the child, (3) specialized treatment for trauma for the child, (4) case
management, (5) parent training, (6) substance abuse treatment, (7) crisis
intervention, (8) financial assistance, (9) educational advocacy, (10)
respite care, (11) support groups for parents, (12) referral services, (13)
counseling/mental
health
services
for
the
child,
and
(14)
counseling/mental health services for the parents.

Underserved family status. For each of the 14 post-adoption services
listed on the survey, respondents were coded as either (a) needing the
service and having accessed it, (b) needing the service but not having
accessed it, (c) not needing the service but nevertheless having accessed
it, and (d) neither needing nor accessing the service. For this study, an
underserved adoptive family is one in which the respondent indicates at
least one instance of category b needing a specific post-adoptive service
but not accessing it.
Barriers to accessing post-adoption services. Adoptive parents were
provided with a list of 7 possible barriers the family may or may not have
encountered in attempting to access post-adoption services. Respondents
were asked, Which of the following are barriers you encountered to
receiving services? Select all that apply. The list began with the option,
I did not experience any barriers to receiving the services I needed. The
7 barriers that followed were these: (1) I was unaware of where to find
services; (2) I was unaware of what services to look for; (3) I did not want
to ask for help; (4) the services I did access were not helpful; (5) I could
not afford the services available; (6) my child was uncooperative; and (7)
my spouse/significant other was uncooperative. Barrier 7 was excluded
from analysis because fewer than 1% of the respondents indicated a yes
response to this item.
RESULTS
Demographics
This study involves data on all 437 respondents who participated in the
NAFS. Very few population parameters are known among families that
10
adopt children from the U.S. foster care system, but two other data sets
are sufficiently similar to the scope of the NAFS to warrant comparison
the National Survey of Adoptive Parents (NSAP) (Vandivere, Malm, &
Radel, 2009) and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting
System (AFCARS) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
2012). It is particularly important to compare NAFS data against other data
sets because NAFS uses a convenience sample. Both of these
comparison data sets have limitations in comparisons with NAFS
respondents, a topic more thoroughly discussed in other studies
(Hartinger-Saunders et al., in press-a, in press-b).
Table 1. Comparison of Descriptive Statistics in Adoptive

Family Data Sets
NAFS
NSAP
AFCARS (2011)
White
48%
37%
45%
Black
32%
23%
23%
Hispanic
11%
15%
21%
Other
9%
24%
19%
White
79%
73%
Black
8%
27%
Hispanic
5%
5%
Other
6%
Male
47%
57%
51%
Female
53%
43%
49%
02 years
38%
6%
27%
34 years
12%
9%
22%
Race (child)
Race (adoptive parent)
Gender
Age of child at adoption
11
59 years
29%
30%
31%
1012 years
14%
19%
11%
1314 years
3%
14%
5%
1517 years
4%
23%
4%
87%
70%
68%
Family structure
Married
Relationship to child before adoption

Foster parent
40%
42%
54%
Relative
6%
23%
31%
Nonrelative
27%
40%
15%
Less than high school
7%
High school graduate
29%
22%
More than high school 72%
70%
Education of adoptive parent
Abbreviations: NAFS, National Adoptive Families Study; NSAP,

National Survey of Adoptive Parents; AFCARS, Adoption and Foster
Care Analysis and Reporting System.
Sources: Hartinger-Saunders (2014); Vandivere, Malm, & Radel
(2009);
U.S.
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children,

Youth and Families, Childrens Bureau (2012).
Table 1 shows that across more dimensions than not, NAFS respondents
are similar demographically and by family structure to respondents in both
the NSAP and AFCARS data sets. Notable points of divergence from the
NSAP and AFCARS data sets suggest that NAFS data likely
underrepresent black adoptive parents (although not black adopted
children), overrepresent married parents, and underrepresent parents who
are biological relatives of the adopted child. Hartinger-Saunders et al. (in
12
press-a) discuss reasons why a demographic weight for the sample is

methodologically inappropriate for NAFS data.
Underserved Adoptive Families

Conceptually, families that adopt children from the U.S. foster care system
can fall into one of four post-adoption service need categories based on
the overlap with post-adoption service access. These four categories are
the following: (1) parents who report that no post-adoption services have
been needed; (2) parents who report that services have been needed and
all of the needed services have been accessed successfully; (3) parents
who report that services have been needed and some but not all of the
needed services have been accessed successfully; and (4) parents who
report that services have been needed, none of which have been
accessed successfully. Figure 1 shows that NAFS respondents are nearly
equally divided among these four categories.
13
Figure 1. Services needed and accessed successfully and

unsuccessfully.
Groups 3 and 4 combine to indicate underserved adoptive families
because at least one post-adoption service that the family needed was not
accessed by the family. In the NAFS, 56.5% of families are underserved
according to this definition, about half of which have never accessed a
single post-adoption service that the family needed. Likewise, just under
half of underserved families have been able to access at least one postadoption service needed by the family.
Figure 2 shows the extent to which underserved adoptive families do and
do not access the services they report needing. The figure indicates that
more than two-thirds (69.2%) of underserved adoptive families failed to
access two or more of the services that they say they needed. Looking at
instances of successful service provision, on the other hand, the figure
shows that 41.7% of underserved adoptive families successfully accessed
two or more post-adoptive services that they needed.
80.0%
69.2%
70.0%
60.0%
48.2%
50.0%
41.7%
40.0%
30.8%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
10.1%
0.0%
0.0%
None
1 Service
2 or More Services
Unsuccessfully Accessed
Successfully Accessed
14
Figure 2. Needed post-adoption services that were successfully

and unsuccessfully accessed by underserved adoptive families.
Traditionally Marginalized Groups

We used independent samples t tests to determine whether or not
underserved
adoptive
families
differed
markedly
across
various
demographic and familial traits. The results are presented in Table 2. All
the variables included in the table have either continuous or dichotomous
distributions (0, no; 1, yes), with the exception of income. In the NAFS,
income is measured on a 10-point ordinal scale. Although imperfect, we
believe that a t distribution is adequate for testing mean differences along
this income scale.
The table highlights that nonwhite families (which include Hispanics in the
NAFS sample), families that adopt older children, families that are
considered kinship placements, and families that adopt from private
agencies are more likely to be underserved. However, lower-income
families are less likely to be underserved.
Table 2. Demographic and Familial Differences Between Underserved

Adoptive Families and Other Adoptive Families
Underserved
Other Adoptive
Adoptive Families
Families
SEM
SEM
(df=435)
Male adoptive child
.478
.032
.462
.037
.032
Nonwhite child
.530
.032
.532
.036
.025
Nonwhite parent
.287
.029
.147
.026
3.509***
Parents married
.858
.022
.847
.026
.320
Income
6.545
.106
6.181
.115
2.297**
Age of child at initial placement
4.830
.255
2.683
.273
5.698***
t value
15
Related to adopted child
.081
.017
.026
.012
2.450**
Adopted through private agency
.243
.027
.156
.027
2.225**
Years since adoption occurred
5.393
.335
4.185
.278
2.647**
Parent age at initial placement
35.200
.472
36.457
.531
1.760*
Abbreviations: M, mean; SEM, standard error of mean; df, degrees of freedom.

* p<.10, ** p<.05, *** p<.001.
Services Needed and Barriers to Access

Figure 3 displays various data points about the 14 post-adoption services
included in the NAFS. The dark shaded bars indicate the percentages of
underserved families that needed each service but were not able to
access it. Three post-adoption services were needed, but not accessed,
by more than 30% of underserved adoptive families: support groups for
adoptive parents (36.4%), respite care (temporary nonparental supervision
of the adopted child) (32.4%), and social skills training for the adopted
child (30.8%). All of the post-adoptive services tested were needed but not
accessed by at least 10% of underserved adoptive families.
The light shaded bars in Figure 3 show the percentages of all adoptive
families in the NAFS that accessed each service, regardless of need.
These data points indicate how commonly various post-adoption services
are rendered, irrespective of family need. The figure shows that the most
commonly rendered post-adoption services include counseling and mental
health services for the adopted child (34.3%), financial assistance
(33.4%), parent support groups for adoptive parents (28.4%), and parent
training (27.5%).
16
Figure 3. Services needed but not accessed by underserved families,

compared with services accessed overall.
The divergence between these two percentage values for each service
(the difference, or delta, between the light and dark shaded bars,
17
presented at the right side of the figure) also produces a useful value for
analysis. Specifically, the delta values in Figure 3 show that underserved
families frequently need two post-adoption services respite care and
specialized treatment for the childs trauma. Nonetheless, they are
rendered disproportionately by the state.
Table 3 helps us understand what types of barriers keep underserved
adoptive families from accessing the services they need. Again, we used
independent samples t tests to determine whether or not underserved
adoptive families differed from other adoptive families, in this case
according to the rate at which each barrier was encountered. Each barrier
listed in Table 3 was measured through a dichotomous variable (0, no; 1,
yes).
Table 3. Barriers to Accessing Post-adoption Services, by Underserved

Adoptive Family Status
Underserved
Other Adoptive
Adoptive Families
Families
SEM
SEM
(df=435)
Experienced no barriers
.158
.023
.653
.035
12.27**
Unaware of where to find services
.296
.029
.068
.018
6.16**
Unaware of what services to look
.291
.029
.100
.022
5.02**
Did not want to ask for help
.109
.020
.037
.014
2.82*
Past services were not helpful
.291
.029
.042
.015
7.04**
Could not afford services available
.186
.025
.032
.013
5.08**
Adopted child was uncooperative
.182
.025
.026
.012
5.22**
t value
for
Abbreviations: M, mean; SEM, standard error of mean; df, degrees of freedom.

* p<.05, ** p<.001.
18
Underserved adoptive families were less likely than other adoptive families
to say that they had experienced no barriers to accessing services they
needed: 15.8% compared with 65.3%. Significant mean differences are
found across each of the barriers in the table. Looking just at the tested
barriers occupying rows 2 through 7 of the table, the largest mean
difference between underserved adoptive families and all other adoptive
families is for past services were not helpful.
DISCUSSION
Adoptive Parents as Underserved
As hypothesized, the results of this study suggest that many adoptive
families are underserved and therefore highly vulnerable. Findings
revealed that almost 60% of NAFS participants were underserved as
defined by the study, which means that they experienced at least one
instance when they needed a post-adoption service but did not access it.
Furthermore, an alarming 70% of underserved adoptive families failed to
access two or more services they needed. Thus, the typical experience of
underserved adoptive families in the NAFS sample was to have multiple
post-adoption needs, and to experience limited or no success accessing
services for them. Other studies document high rates of accessing postadoption services (Smith, 2014a), but the NAFS is the first data set to
measure rates at which services are needed but ultimately not accessed.
This study also hypothesized that traditionally marginalized demographic
groups would be disproportionately represented among underserved
adoptive families. The data show limited support for this hypothesis.
Among underserved adoptive families, nonwhite adoptive parents are
significantly more likely to be underserved, which is consistent with
traditionally marginalized groups based on race and ethnicity. This effect
19
does not extend to marital status, race of the adopted child, or gender of
the adopted child.
Income, however, distributes in the opposite direction from what we
hypothesized, whereby lower-income adoptive families are less likely to be
underserved. It is possible that lower-income families go into the adoptive
process having a higher degree of familiarity with state services and
therefore are more adept at accessing post-adoption services from the
state. Another possible reason for this effect is that higher-income families
experience shame in association with accessing state services. Further
research is needed to clarify the relationship between family income and
access to post-adoption services.
The data also indicate that families adopting older children are more likely
to be underserved, which is consistent with findings from Smith (2014a).
This is not surprising because limited services are available, yet it is
troubling because disruption and dissolution rates are vastly higher among
older children than younger children. Additionally, older children may
refuse or resist services. In the NAFS, 18.2% of adoptive families list an
uncooperative adopted child as a barrier to accessing needed postadoption services. Furthermore, families experiencing an uncooperative
adopted child as a barrier to services adopted at a mean age of 7.4 years,
compared with a mean age of 3.4 years for families that did not list this as
a barrier [t(431)=6.96, p<.001].
Kinship adoptive families that are biologically related to the child are also
more likely to be underserved, although in the NAFS these families are
underrepresented and therefore comprise fewer than 10% of underserved
adoptive families. Regardless of underrepresentation in the sample, the
data clearly indicate a higher likelihood of an adoptive family of kin being
underserved. Howard and Smith (2003) found that kinship adopters
20
reported fewer child behavior problems and service needs. However, it is

unknown whether kinship adoptive families reported fewer issues to avoid
continued state intervention, or whether the kinship relationship produces
more favorable outcomes. In contrast, Ryan, Hinterlong, Hegar, &
Johnson (2010) reported that kinship families conveyed more undesirable
assessments of their familys current functioning. Additional data are
required to understand this relationship fully.
Families that adopt through a private agency rather than directly through
the state were more likely to be represented among underserved adoptive
families. However, it is unlikely that all families can choose to use a private
agency for foster care adoptions because this practice varies based on
state policies. Thus, caution should be exercised in interpreting results
involving this variable. Nevertheless, this finding supports the generalized
critique of privatized government services that private agents are
inherently less motivated to support the public welfare functions of
government.
Service Need and Access

Interestingly, all services in this study were needed but not accessed by at
least 10% of the sample. This studys findings were consistent with those
of previous studies that identified support groups and respite care as
commonly unmet needs (McDonald, Propp, & Murphy, 2001; Kramer &
Houston, 1998). As in other studies, respite care was identified as one of
the largest unmet needs (Rosenthal, Groze, & Morgan, 1995). Among the
underserved adoptive families in the NAFS sample, 32.4% needed respite
care and did not access it. This is essential information for child welfare
policy makers because unmet need for respite care is a predictor of
adoption instability and has been shown to have a negative effect on the
21
adoptive family unit (Howard, Smith, & Ryan, 2004). Accessing respite
care has been associated with fewer crisis-driven placement disruptions,
greater optimism on the part of parents about their ability to care for their
child, and reduced caregiver stress (Bruns & Burchard, 2000).
Unfortunately, although adoptive parents identify respite care as helpful, it
is hard for most families to access this service (Livingston-Smith, 2010).
This study is the first to demonstrate that trauma-specific post-adoption
services belong in the list of commonly unmet needs among underserved
adoptive parents. Trauma-specific post-adoption services require a
competent adoption professional with knowledge of trauma and the child
welfare system (Smith, 2014a; Smith, 2014b). In the NAFS, about 28% of
all adoptive families accessed specialized treatment for the childs trauma.
However, close to 30% of the population of underserved adoptive families
that needed it did not access it. There continues to be a deficit in the
number
of
adoption-competent
professionals
with
this
expertise
(Livingston-Smith, 2010; Ryan et al., 2009) despite what we now know

about trauma and adoption.
Barriers to Services: Missed Opportunities

As hypothesized, underserved adoptive families were more likely to report
barriers to accessing services. The findings indicate significant mean
differences between underserved adoptive families and other adoptive
families in experiencing barriers. Only 16% of underserved families
perceived no barriers, compared with 65% of other adoptive families.
The most common barriers to obtaining services for underserved adoptive
families were the following: being unaware of where to find services
(27%), being unaware of what to look for (29%), and perceiving past
services as not helpful (29%). It is interesting to note that not knowing
22
what services to look for and not knowing where to look for services were
also barriers to services for adoptive families identified by adoption
professionals (Ryan et al., 2009). Although this finding suggests
congruency between adoptive families and adoption professionals around
service barriers, advocacy or corrective action to resolve the issues in
practice has been minimal.
Although the scope of this study did not allow an examination of reasons
why underserved participants perceived services as not helpful,
acknowledging the perception is critical nonetheless. Livingston-Smith
(2010) highlighted a number of reasons why adoptive parents found postadoption services unhelpful, including that service providers (1) made the
family feel as if it was to blame, (2) failed to validate the familys
experiences, (3) suggested that the family give the child back to the state,
and (4) failed to provide the adoptive parents with adequate information
about the childs history. We find troubling evidence in the current study
that poorly executed post-adoption services are far more commonly
experienced by underserved adoptive families (29%) than by others (4%).
This bad first impression effect likely starts or accelerates a downward
trend of mistrust in state post-adoption services.
Study Limitations
The moderate sample size is a limitation of this study. However, data on
adoption outcomes are difficult to obtain because child welfare agencies
have limited oversight once adoptions are finalized. Although the NAFS
had survey participants from all 50 states, the sampling methodology is
not representative, and therefore the results are not generalizable.
Recruitment strategies for the NAFS may have limited the sample to
adoptive parents with access to computers, the Internet, and social media
23
sites. The self-report nature of the survey is also a limitation. As in all

retrospective surveys, asking participants to recall past information about
the child before the adoption and after the adoption also has its limitations.
Because adoptive parents rely on agency personnel to communicate the
childs history based on administrative records, they may not always be
provided with current or accurate information.
Other study limitations include the study measures. The list of postadoption services was compiled from other studies on post-adoption
service need and use, and services were not explicitly defined for
participants. Therefore, participants may have selected a service that most
closely matched the service they needed or accessed. Furthermore, the
list may not have been fully inclusive of all available post-adoption
services in each state.
Implications for Practice

One of the key responsibilities of the social work profession is to challenge
social injustice and ensure that needed information, services, and
resources are accessible to help vulnerable and oppressed populations
meet their own needs (NASW, 2008). Social work has been at the
forefront of the field of child welfare field for well over 100 years. However,
this study is one of the first to identify adoptive families as vulnerable and
bring awareness to their underserved status.
In light of this finding, the social work profession, in partnership with child
welfare organizations, needs to become a stronger advocate for
underserved adoptive families. Partnerships should focus on maximizing
quality resources and addressing the disparities in access to appropriate
resources and services for adoptive families. Outreach is a viable option
24
for traditionally underserved populations and should be considered as a

method of service delivery to improve access.
The need to increase the number of quality post-adoption services is
essential and has been well established in the literature. However, an
overhaul of the processes involved in the delivery of post-adoption
services is unavoidable. Reconceptualizing the role of child welfare
agencies in the lives of adoptive children and families is imperative. Postadoption services should not be viewed as a last resort for families in
crisis, but as the first line of defense in supporting and nurturing families to
ensure permanence. Improving post-adoption services and increasing
access to families should not be perceived as an added responsibility for
the agency to bear, but rather considered as part of the agencys original
commitment to children who are removed from their biological families.
The culture of adoption and post-adoption services within child welfare
agencies requires a substantial transformation. Agencies need to establish
a proactive, not a reactive, service delivery model. Additionally, the
perceived stigma associated with seeking post-adoption services needs to
be addressed. Livingston-Smith (2010) highlights the benefit of getting
adoptive parents to reframe seeking help as a strength, indicating that it
may encourage them to address emerging issues before they spiral out of
control. Good social work practice begins with strong engagement skills.
Adoption professionals who take the time to develop rapport with adoptive
families can significantly increase the likelihood of their seeking help in the
future. When adoptive families make the decision not to access postadoption services because they were perceived as not helpful in the past,
the child welfare system has missed critical opportunities to intervene.
Because the other barriers most commonly reported by underserved
adoptive families were being unaware of where to find services and
25
being unaware of what to look for, the field may want to consider using
technological advances in mobile applications to give adoptive families
(and adoptees) immediate access to informational and preliminary
resources. Although online methods and mobile technology have been
widely used to provide an alternative approach to care for other
populations, they have not been used with adoptive families (HartingerSaunders et al., 2015).
Adoptees cannot afford to endure an adoption disruption, or still worse, an
adoption dissolution. Post-adoption services should be designed as if they
will be needed and accessed. There is danger in implementing a postadoption services model that is reactive. When adoptive families make the
decision to seek out help, we need to be prepared to respond with viable
options that are sensitive, related to their specific needs, and effective.
Public child welfare agencies should be on the forefront of designing and
implementing post-adoption services to address the unique need of
children adopted from the child welfare system. Post-adoption service
workers should be highly trained and viewed as an integral part of the
child welfare team, committed to the safety, permanence, and well-being
of children.
More often than not, statistics show that adoption is a positive experience
that offers children an alternative to growing up in abusive and neglectful
homes. However, we cannot lose sight of the adoptive families and
adoptees struggling with the process. Research on adoption disruption
and dissolution is difficult to obtain, yet some studies suggest that 10% to
25% of adoptions disrupt and 1% to 10% dissolve completely (HartingerSaunders et al., in press-a) . Nevertheless, child welfare practitioners and
policy makers cannot focus on these numbers when determining whether
or not the field of post-adoption services needs improvement. As we have
26
seen in the NAFS and previous studies, adoptive families are struggling
live in silence for extended periods of time and for various reasons. This
does not mean that they do not have significant needs or require services.
In fact, the literature tells us quite a different story. A large body of
literature supports the long-term, permanent deficits that abused children
will endure. An adoption disruption or dissolution may be the only
mechanism for some families to finally obtain the necessary and
appropriate services for the child. This is a costly strategy (financially and
emotionally) for the child, family, child welfare agency, and community.
Adoption should not be viewed as an end in and of itself. Even though
adoption is considered a favorable outcome for child welfare agencies, it is
not a single event for adoptees and their families; it is a lifelong process.
27
References
Anderson, D. (2005). Post-adoption services: Needs of the family. Journal

of Family Social Work, 9(3), 1933. doi: 10.1300/j039v09n0302
Avery,R.(2004). Strengthening and preserving adoptive families: Astudy of
TANF-funded post adoption services in New York State. Retrieved
from http://nysccc.org/wpcontent/uploads/tanfaverypasrpt.pdf
Barth, R. P., & Miller, J. M. (2001). Building effective post-adoption
services: What are the empirical foundations? Family Relations, 49,
447455.
Briggs-Gowan, M.J., Horwitz, S., Schwab-Stone, M.E., Leventhal, J.M., &
Leaf, P. (2000). Mental health in pediatric settings: Distribution of
disorders and factors related to service use. Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 39(7), 841-849.
Brooks, D., Allen, J., & Barth, R., P. (2002). Adoption Services Use,
Helpfulness, and Need: A Comparison of Public and Private
Agency and Independent Adoptive Families. In Children and Youth
Services Review, 24(4), 213-223. doi:10.1016/S01907409(02)00174-3
Bruns, E., & Burchard, J. (2000). Impact of respite care services for
families with children experiencing emotional and behavioral
problems. Childrens Services: Social Policy, Research, and
Practice, 3(1), 3961.
Carbone, J. A., Sawyer, M. G., Searle, A. K., & Robinson, P. J. (2007).
The health-related quality of life of children and adolescents in
home-based foster care. Quality of Life Research: An International
Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care &
28
Rehabilitation, 16(7), 11571166.

Coakley, J. F., & Berrick, J. D. (2008). Research review: in a rush to
permanency: preventing adoption disruption. Child and Family
Social Work, 13 (1), 101112.
Chamberlain, P., Price, J. M., Reid, J. B., Landsverk, J., Fisher, P. A., &
Stoolmiller, M. (2006). Who disrupts from placement in foster and
kinship care? Child Abuse and Neglect, 30, 409424.
Dozier, M., Melissa, M., Gordon, M. K., Peloso, E., Gunnar, M. R., StovallMcClough, K. C., ... Levine, S. (2006). Foster childrens diurnal
production of cortisol: An exploratory study. Child Maltreatment, 11,
189197.
DeBellis, M. D., Spratt, E. G., & Hooper, S. R. (2011).
Neurodevelopmental biology associated with childhood sexual
abuse. Journal of Child Sex Abuse, 20, 548587.
Fisher, P. A., Gunnar, M., Dozier, M., Bruce, J., & Pears, K. C. (2006).
Effects of a therapeutic intervention for foster children on behavior
problems, caregiver attachment, and stress regulatory neural
systems. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094,
215225.
Fisher, P. A., Mannering, A. M., Van Scoyoc, A., & Graham, A. M. (2013).
A translational neuroscience perspective on the importance of
reducing placement instability among foster children. Child Welfare,
92(5), 936.
Fisher, P. A., & Stoolmiller, M. (2008). Intervention effects on foster parent
stress: Associations with childrens cortisol levels. Development
and Psychopathology, 20, 10031021.
Grotevant, H.D., Wrobel, G.M., van Dulmen, M.H., & McRoy, R.G. (2001).
The emergence of psychosocial engagement in adopted
29
adolescents: The family as context over time. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 16, 469490.
Hartinger-Saunders, R., Trouteaud, A., & Matos Johnson, J. (2014) Postadoption service need and use as predictors of adoption
dissolution: Findings from the 2012 National Adoptive Families
Study. Adoption Quarterly, DOI: 10.1080/10926755.2014.895469
Hartinger-Saunders, R., Trouteaud, A., & Matos Johnson, J. (2015). The
effects of post adoption service need and use on child and adoptive
parent outcomes.Journal of Social Service Research, 41(1), pp. 7592. DOI:10.1080/01488376.2014.953286
Howard, J.A., & Smith, S.L. (2003). After adoption: The needs of adopted
Youth. Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare League of America.
Howard, J.A., Smith, S.L., & Ryan, S.D. (2004). A comparative study of
child welfare adoptions with other types of adopted children and
birth children. Adoption Quarterly, 7, 1-30.
Kramer, L., & Houston, D. (1998). Supporting families as they adopt
children with special needs. Family Relations, 47, 423432.
Lau, A. S., Leeb, R. T., English, D., Graham, J., Briggs, E. C., Brody, K.
E., & Marshall, J. E. (2005). Whats in a name? A comparison of
methods for classifying predominant type of maltreatment. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 29(5), 533551.
Leve, L. D., Harold, G. T., Chamberlain, P., Landsverk, J. A., Fisher, P. A.,
& Vostanis, P. (2012). Practitioner review: Children in foster care
vulnerabilities and evidence-based interventions that promote
resilience processes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
53(12), 11971211.
Livingston, S. S. (2010). Keeping the promise: The critical need for postadoption services to enable children and families to succeed. Evan
30
B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, New York.

McDonald, T., Propp, J., & Murphy, K. (2001). The postadoption
experience: Child, parent, and family adjustment to adoption. Child
Welfare, 130, 71 94.
McGlone, K., Santos, L., Kazama, L., Fong, R., & Mueller, C. (2002).
Psychological stress in adoptive parents of special-needs children.
Child Welfare, 81(2), 151171.
Miskovic, V., Schmidt, L. A., Georgiades, K., Boyle, M., & Macmillan, H. L.
(2010). Adolescent females exposed to child maltreatment exhibit
atypical EEG coherence and psychiatric impairment: Linking early
adversity, the brain, and psychopathology. Developmental
Psychopathology, 22, 419432.
NASW Code of Ethics according to APA (American Psychological
Association) style, as follows: Workers, N. A. (2008). NASW Code
of Ethics (Guide to the Everyday Professional Conduct of Social
Workers). Washington, DC: NASW.
Oosterman, de Schipper, Fisher, Dozier, & Schuengel, C., (2010).
Autonomic reactivity in relation to attachment and early adversity
among foster children. Developmental Psychopathology, Winter,
22(1), 109-18.
Rosenthal, J., Groze, V., & Morgan, A. (1995). Services for families
adopting children via public child welfare agencies: Use,
helpfulness, and need. Children and Youth Services Review, 18,
163183.
Rutter, M., Silberg, J., O'Connor, T., & Simonoff, E. (1999). Genetics and
child psychiatry: II Empirical research findings. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 40, 1955.
Ryan, S.D., Hinterlong, J., Hegar, R., & Johnson, L.B., (2010). Kin
31
adopting kin: In the best interest of the children? Children and

Youth Services Review, 32, 1631-1639.
Ryan, S. D., Nelson, N., & Siebert, C.F. (2009). Examining the facilitators
and barriers faced by adoptive professionals delivering postplacement services. Children and Youth Services Review, 31 ,
584593. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.11.003
Smith, S. L. (2013). Adoption support and preservation services: The
sequel. The Roundtable, 26(1).
Smith, S. L. (2014a). Keeping the promise: The case for adoption support
and preservation.. Retrieved from The Donaldson Adoption Institute
website: http://adoptioninstitute.org/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2014/05/Keeping-the-Promise-Case-forASAP1.pdf
Smith, S. L. (2014b). Supporting and preserving adoptive families: Profiles
of publicly funded post-adoption services.. Retrieved from The
Donaldson Adoption Institute website:
http://adoptioninstitute.org/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2014/04/Supporting-and-Preserving-Families.pdf
Smith, S., Howard, J., & Monroe, A. (2000). Issues underlying behavior
problems in at-risk adopted children. Children and Youth Services
Review, 22, 539562.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and
Families, Children's Bureau. The 2012 AFCARS report. Retrieved
from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport20.pdf
Vandivere, S., Malm, K., & Radel, L.F. (2009). Adoption USA: A chartbook
based on the 2007 National Survey of Adoptive Parents.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
32
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

Vandivere, S., & McKlindon, A. (2010). The well-being of U.S. children
adopted from foster care, privately from the United States and
internationally. Adoption Quarterly, 13(3-4), 157184.
Wind, L. H., Brooks, D., & Barth, R. P. (2007). Influences of risk history
and adoption preparation on post-adoption services use in U.S.
adoptions. Family Relations, 56(4), 378389. doi: 10.1111/j.17413729.2007.00467.x
Y Snchez-Sandoval, Y., & Palacios, J. (2012). Stress in adoptive parents
of adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 1283
1289. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.03.002
Zill, N., & Bramlett, M.D. (2014). Health and well-being of children adopted
from foster care, Children and Youth Services Review, 40, 2940.
33

Underserved Adoptive Families PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Underserved Adoptive Families PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Family Strengths

Underserved Adoptive Families: Disparities in

Alex R. Trouteaud Ph.D.

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/jfs

Hartinger-Saunders and Trouteaud: Underserved Adoptive Families

Vulnerable and Underserved Populations

experiencing circumstances or conditions that limit access to information,

Published by DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center, 2015

Journal of Family Strengths, Vol. 15 [2015], Iss. 1, Art. 6

et al., 2012; Smith, 2014a), we contend that this vulnerability extends to

neurological vulnerabilities affect the childs success at home and in

The Inherent Vulnerability in Adoptive Families

Hartinger-Saunders and Trouteaud: Underserved Adoptive Families

self-regulation (Debillis, Spratt, & Hooper, 2011; Miskovic, Schmidt,

The Childs Impact on Adoptive Families

(Chamberlain et al., 2006). Without sufficient support, caregivers stress

Published by DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center, 2015

Journal of Family Strengths, Vol. 15 [2015], Iss. 1, Art. 6

2006). Evidence from the field of neuroscience further links a history of